People have been killing male chicks, and keeping just a single rooster since the beginning of chickens
Also is the quality of the life of these non-culled female chickens good somehow?
If you were a chicken behind the veil of ignorance choosing your fate, would you choose immediate death (male) or a short, difficult, confined life (female)?
To many advocates, it’s self-evident that the hen’s life is better than immediate death. This is not obvious to me. It depends on the hen’s quality of life.
The embryo is a lot less developed at the 9-15 day window, there's not a chance to really feel pain or panic and from a human perspective they're a lot less cute so their death is less affecting.
To those arguing that this is irrelevant, I urge you to search for a video of this "culling" yourself.
All the logic in the world can't ease my stomach after watching a conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. It's simply not right. And while there are still many issues remaining in the meat industry (arguably its existence at all), this is one less.
> All the logic in the world can't ease my stomach after watching a conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. It's simply not right.
Where on the evolutionary scale do you draw the line and why, though?
Remember that the feeling you experience is a very messy heuristic that exists to perform a basic evolutionary function. People have similar feelings when Boston Dynamics robots (or similar things) are kicked/'abused', even though they would never attribute any awareness or even the experience of pain to them.
A feeling should always be the starting point of a rational appreciation of the situation; things are rarely "simply not right" and feelings are often wrong.
Does anyone know _how_ the detection process works? And is there anything done to the hen or the egg during that process that could make the egg less healthy or nutritious?
> What are the alternatives? We are pleased to see that research is being carried out to look into ways of sexing chicks at an early stage, whilst still in the egg. These new technologies aim to do the sexing and disposal before the embryo can feel pain, which happens at around seven days. We are following these developments with interest.
I am disturbed to find unwanted male chicks get “culled” because there is no market value for them in egg production. And there is no need for them in meat production.
This tech is able to select the female eggs only for hatching and redirect the male eggs for egging. The result is we have more eggs for people. And less waste of resources. Win win. Also a win for PETA. Something like this should be adopted en masse for market value reasons.
This is the sort of issue that I think exposes a very interesting paradox in the average person.
People are worried about seemingly extraordinary cruelty perpetrated against a cute animal (maceration of young chicks) but basically accept regular, banal cruelty against typical farm animals (the practice of eating farming and eating meat and eggs).
I personally think the cause is at least on balance positive morally for any given male chick, but it’s not so clear to me that it’s moral if this scales to the point that the industry may raise more female chickens to lay eggs with less resources/comfort/etc.
20 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 35.9 ms ] threadTo many advocates, it’s self-evident that the hen’s life is better than immediate death. This is not obvious to me. It depends on the hen’s quality of life.
The change from barely differentiate lump to chick happens rapidly in the last few days: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-72004-y/figures/2
Ethical eggs are a luxury good that I can afford and am willing to pay for, but the blatant 'will trade cash for feeling ethical' is tough.
All the logic in the world can't ease my stomach after watching a conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. It's simply not right. And while there are still many issues remaining in the meat industry (arguably its existence at all), this is one less.
Where on the evolutionary scale do you draw the line and why, though?
Remember that the feeling you experience is a very messy heuristic that exists to perform a basic evolutionary function. People have similar feelings when Boston Dynamics robots (or similar things) are kicked/'abused', even though they would never attribute any awareness or even the experience of pain to them.
A feeling should always be the starting point of a rational appreciation of the situation; things are rarely "simply not right" and feelings are often wrong.
Just go vegan.
https://www.rspcaassured.org.uk/farmed-animal-welfare/egg-la...
Feels like the volume should mean we're not experimentally limited in the technology, and the savings are obvious.
Like a CRISPR system which turns off the male chromosomes in roosters or something.
This tech is able to select the female eggs only for hatching and redirect the male eggs for egging. The result is we have more eggs for people. And less waste of resources. Win win. Also a win for PETA. Something like this should be adopted en masse for market value reasons.
People are worried about seemingly extraordinary cruelty perpetrated against a cute animal (maceration of young chicks) but basically accept regular, banal cruelty against typical farm animals (the practice of eating farming and eating meat and eggs).
I personally think the cause is at least on balance positive morally for any given male chick, but it’s not so clear to me that it’s moral if this scales to the point that the industry may raise more female chickens to lay eggs with less resources/comfort/etc.